Full Tilt satellite to $500 WSOP Super - pro called me a donk - am i?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I guess it is not as clear as I was thinking. I was looking at it only from the perspective if they lose the hand, then I think this case is clear fold moreso. But obviously with their holdings and the fact that shoving on a table of 3 players is not necessarily representing that much strength compared to raising on a full table. I guess the holdings are the biggest factor, so I see your point.

If we know they are both losing, Dynasty is in better shape though right?

[/ QUOTE ]

The holdings are not the most important factor. In Dynasty's case, both opponents were telegraphing very strong hands and he had JTs, but that is not all that relevant.

The point is that Dynasty is so far ahead of everyone that he can fold into a seat. Playing any hand is diadvantageous. The fact that he is not in bad shape after losing the hand is irrelevant.

I agree that OP in this hand is in worse shape after losing the hand than Dynasty would be. However, that is why he needs to play the hand. He does not have a big enough lead that he can just fold his way in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but just to clarify, Dynasty's lead is the same as this OP here, approx 5x short stack. They are both equally far ahead of shorty. If OP here had the JTs or T9s whatever it was, your saying he should play? No. His holdings are the most important factor here.

Betgo, I hope your enjoying this discussion, because I'm not trying to be argumentative or a nit or anything, I am literally learning through our dialogue and others like it. So it is defninitely helpful to me, and I hope others also.

[/ QUOTE ]
In Dynasty's case there were 9 players for 8 seats. As the chip leader, he could fold his way in.

In this case, there were 3 players for 2 seats, so the chip leader could not automatically fold his way in. That is the key difference.